Posted on 02/21/2005 10:28:06 AM PST by LarkNeelie
His case had been reviewed, the letter said. ``In addition, we have reviewed your personal Web site.''The American Society of Transplant Surgeons and LifeLink are ``strongly opposed to the solicitation of organs or organ donors by recipients or their agents through Web sites,'' the letter continued.
``After careful deliberation, we will not consider any living donor for you.''
Crionas was stunned by the decision.
``I was dumbfounded ... I'm, like, are you serious?''
The LifeLink letter said he could be put back on the national list to wait for a ``deceased'' kidney of someone who had made provisions to be an organ donor upon death. But Crionas, now 28, fears that wait might be as long as five to 10 years, due to factors such as his age and blood type.
Most of the 87,000 people on national waiting lists for organ transplants are waiting for kidneys.
Web Sites And Billboards
Like Crionas, hundreds of others seeking organ transplants have decided to quit relying solely on the nation's organ distribution system to find them hearts, lungs and kidneys.
They have set up Web sites and bought advertising space on billboards to make direct pleas for organ donors.
The system - put in place through the 1984 National Organ Transplant Act - may not be ready for them.
In November, after the first kidney transplant involving people who met through a Web site, www.Ma tchingDonors.com, the transplant surgeons' society issued a statement against personal or commercial Web sites that solicit organs.
The surgeons group urged centers not to accept patients who found living donors through Web sites.
(Excerpt) Read more at info.mgnetwork.com ...
While organ selling and the like is certainly concerning and an ethical non-starter in my opinion, you'd think that that organ donor/transplantation process would have progressed further than it has. Fraught with ethical, legal and medical questions, sufferers have turned to the internet to try and force progress upon the issue.
--what's wrong with a free market in donor organs? I suspect it would end the shortage, especially in kidneys since virtually all healthy people can get along with one---
An alternative to hemodialysis is peritoneal dialysis which, although it's lesser known and not as widespread (yet), avoids some of the negative side-effects of hemodialysis.
Here's the solution (long term)
"in order to get, you have to be willing to give"
Everyone is given an opportunity to sign up as potential organ donors (upon death). People who are signed up get first crack at available organs based on the same medical criteria as now.
Same folks as currently administer the program continue.
It won't take long for people to figure out that signing up is cheap life insurance and the supply of organs increases exponentially.
Don't try to tell me that organ donation should be a "gift of love" or something like that. Everyone from the hospital and doctors removing the organs through the transportation services to the hospital and doctors transplanting the organs is well paid for the procedure. The only one told that it is wrong to profit from organ donation is the original owner of the organ.
I am a little queasy about applying the same logic to voluntary living donors, but I don't have a solid reason to argue against it.
According to Al-Jazeera we already do.
Nothing is wrong with this, but it challenges the power of the existing system, which would rather have people die than allow consenting adults to contract for services.
Very interesting dilemma. If the surgeons won't do the transplants, then this sort of advertising is unlikely to work out very well.
Kidneys for the highest bidders? Well, that's capitalism, but you do have to have someone to do the surgery, and that's capitalism, too.
I'm sure there are surgeons who will go ahead and do this, but they're likely to be censured by this organization, and might have trouble finding hospitals in which to operate.
Interesting dilemma, indeed.
"--what's wrong with a free market in donor organs? I suspect it would end the shortage, especially in kidneys since virtually all healthy people can get along with one---"
There's nothing intrinsically wrong with such a system, but there's one piece missing...the surgeon. If you can't find a surgeon willing to do the surgery, you're out of luck.
Looks like some professional organization of transplant surgeons has decided not to support this kind of solicitation. Since they're business folks, that's their choice in a free market.
It's a sticky business, isn't it. Unless you can find a surgeon to perform the surgery, you can't have the transplant at all, and who knows what the hospitals think about all of this.
This might be one of those things where you have to go to India or China for the surgery. As a potential donor, I'd be a little leery of any surgery done by an unaffiliated physician in a foreign hospital, wouldn't you?
Which makes me wonder what's the point of the organ donor mark on a DL?
I have made it very clear to my entire family (promising to haunt them and not in a nice way if they refuse to honor my wishes), and in a living will as well, that my entire body is to be used for organ donation.
This is exactly why my step-mother in law refuses to put herself on the organ donor list. She scared that the doctors will refuse to treat her to the best of their ability if they know she is on the organ donor list.
This is exactly why my step-mother in law refuses to put herself on the organ donor list. She scared that the doctors will refuse to treat her to the best of their ability if they know she is on the organ donor list.
I agree....If someone offered $1,000,000 for one of my kidneys...we could do some business.
Personally, I removed my "organ donor" designation from my driver's license after discovering the system was for-profit for everybody but the donor and the recipient. I also object to my family's inability under the current system to direct my donation to a person they deem a worthy recipient. For example:
Let's consider two patients needing a liver, Patients A and B. Patient A is really sick and needs my liver, because he was a chronic alcoholic and destroyed his own liver. Patient B is lower on the recipient priority list, but his liver was damaged by hepatitis, which he accidentally contracted while working as an EMT. Now, guess who I think should get my liver?
So, I can't participate in a system that does not take into account the cause of someone's organ failure. If I'm wrong about the current registry system not considering cause of organ failure, please let me know and I'll reconsider my decision. I think the current system needs an overhaul and maybe the onging shortage of organs will prompt just such review/revision.
Yea, peritoneal is a lot better, spend twice as long hooked up to a bag and then walk around with a tube sticking out of your stomach.
It would be very difficult to believe that David Crosby and that actor weren't ushered to the front of the line.
My grandfather is currently on it. Yes, he does have a port, not a tube sticking out of his gut. His dyalisis happens at night, when he's sleeping.
I suppose you could dismiss it as a glass-half-empty solution. Without it, though, my Grandpa would have lost his glass a couple of years ago. The improvement in his general health since he switched over from hemo- to peritoneal-dialysis has been remarkable.
Especially considering Roe vs Wade, which cites the 'right to privacy' which blanket authorization allows a woman to 'do what she wants with her own body (and what's in it)'...
is this 'right' not extended to those who wish to make a living donation? It's their body, isn't it their right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.